DEMOCRATIC WAY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20106, 28 November 1939, Page 11

DEMOCRATIC WAY

MODERN TENDENCIES METHOD OF GOVERNMENT PARTY SYSTEM DANGER ROTARY CLUB ADDRESS A review of the evolution of the democratic system of government, appropriate in view of the present fight for democracy, was given at Die Gisborne Rotary Club's luncheon to-day by Mr. E. L. Adams, who referred to modern, tendencies, such as the party system, as tending to destroy something of the democratic principles built up over the centuries.

Saying that often people had only a vague idea of the principles of democracy, Mr. Adams said that the true definition was government by the people, all people having some say in the government of the country.

Our system he said, was an evolution of what had been going on for hundreds of years. The old Saxons had the moot system, every villager having the right to attend the village moots. Within the village it was pure democracy, but for the task of governing the whole country the town moots elected representatives to attend the higher moots. By that means the views of the common people were reflected in the higher realm.

That system gave England a contented government, but it was upset by the advent of the Normans in 1066. The Normans established a great council consisting of the nominees of the King, the people having no say in the Government at all A Long Struggle Then there started a long struggle in which the people strove to secure some power over tire King. The first big step was taken when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, conferring to the barons and the people some of the rights they had before. The next big step was the establishment of do Monfort's Parliament in 1265 and 1295, all classes being represented, but the King wielded the" paramount power.

During the Wars of the Roses the people lost some of their power, the Tudors attaining a despotism which, however, they used in an equitable manner. The clash came with a Stuart Sovereign who did not have the same tact. This led up to the Bill of Rights in 1689.

The next 150 years were absorbed in the organisation of Parliament. The King used to preside over Parliament, but by a strange chance two of the Georges did not speak English, and they delegated their powers ;n Parliament to others. The first of these. Walpole, was the first Prime Minister in the modern sense. That led to the creation of the Cabinet, but it was not until the nineteenth century that the principle was established in the House. Reformation of Parliament. The next step was reformation of Parliament itself. Parliament did not represent the whole nation. The various grades of society were represented but not the whole of the people. The people themselves sought to have more say in the election of Parliament, and then followed a succession of reform bills, extending the franchise until all men and then women were able to vote, so that all people of 21 years and over were directly represented in Parliament, which was the supreme body. The secret ballot was also instituted.

There were other growths, Including that of party government, which started at about'the time of Charles 11, the two parties being the Whigs and Tories, but they were very loosely formed, members frequently voting one way and then the next without losing any prestige. Party organisation became more prominent in the days of Gladstone and Disraeli, members being elected to support one particular man in Parliament, and party discipline then becoming more rigid. That reduced somewhat the democratic principle in government.

The main trend this century was the growth of the Labour Party, which appealed, throughout its name, to the working man. This stifl'ened un the party discipline in Parliament. With our system of election of “the first past the post” two opposition parties might have the majority of the people behind them, so the general tendency was to confine the parties to two, and even under that principle a party might not have a majority of the voters behind it. Something further, therefore, was lost in the democratic form of Government. Modern Party System In the modern party system, a candidate must obey the party rules and vote as the party wished. There was nothing to prevent a member voting against the wishes of his party, but he would have to leave the party and perhaps ruin his political career. Under the present system a member often voted simply as a machine, sometimes voting against his own views.

Party discipline, therefore, was doing much to do away with pure democracy. The people, however, retained freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, to give them ample opportunity for criticism. No group of men was perfect, and if a Government would listen to criticism it would receive much benefit from it, modifying its policy in accordance with the wishes of the people, but there was a distinct danger if a Government refused to listen to criticism and the wishes of the people. If a Government refused to do so, the country might go on the way towards political dictatorship.

A Government, however, was guided by the thought that at election time it must give an account of its stewardship, and so long as there were free elections there would be a restraint on any extreme form of government. It was impossible for each person to have his views represented in Parliament, and the system of election was the best method of giving expression to his views. To safeguard democracy there must be free and open criticism of Parliament, and free elections without coercion, while it would be a good move if parly discipline was not so severe. He suggested that a man should go to Parliament pledged on general lines to support a general policy. The present trend was limit party discipline was tending to become far too rigid and that tended to government by the Cabinet.

At the close, a hearty vote of thanks, proposed by Rotarian G, C. Burton, was passed to Mr. Adams. Rotarian C. H. Bull was in the chair.